PC 10/13/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

8t. ~ctions of the Zonine Administrator There were none. ad. Detennination of whether second units are subject to the locjational requirements of PUD-approved building envelopes according to the State GovenUnent Code and City Ordinance. Mr. Swift presented the staff report recommending that second unit~ be subject to the locational requirements of PUD-approved building envelopes and thprefore may not be constructed outside the building envelope established by the PUD zqning. In response to Commissioner Hovingh, Mr. Swift indicated that there are some structures in the Deer Oaks division that are outside of the building envelopes arid building permits had not been issued for the structures. Further, responding to Commis~ioner Hovingh, that although a homeowner may build without permits, the City has the 'right to require the homeowner to correct the situation as well as issue citations. Mr. ~eougher also added that when the homeowner wishes to sell the property with illegal struct*es, he must clear up the matter. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Samuel Raber, 20 Deer Oaks Court, represented the application. Mr. Raber summarized his disagreements with the staff report. He stated the State law requir~s the City to grant approval of second units when nine listed conditions are met. FUl1hermore, a local ordinance shall not be the basis of denial of a second unit. TherefJ:>re, Mr. Raber feels that the local ordinance stating that the second unit must fall within the: building envelope cannot be used as a denial of the second unit. Mr. Raber feels that the building envelope is nothing more than a ~ubjective dotted line on a building plan, has no dimensions, and should only be used as guid/lffice. A great deal of excavating has been done to Mr. Raber's property. There is anotljler relatively flat portion on his lot, and with a minimum of grading and/or cutting, it could be made usable for another structure (Le., his second unit). Mr. Raber gave specific examples of illegal structures in Deer Oajks which he feels are outside of their building envelopes. Due to the large amount of undeveloped land on his property, he ,feels the street would look better if another house was built. Mr. Raber feels the City is beihg unreasonable to reject his proposal without first inspecting his property. In conclusion, he stated he is one individual with specific problems on his specific lot, and he is asking for approval to build a second unit outside the building envelope on this particular lot. Mr. Raber further states there is not enough area to build a second unit within his building envelope. Commissioner Finch advised the applicant that the established building envelopes can be changed, although geological studies need to be made first. Furthermore, swimming pools, gazebos, and uninhabited structures can be built outside the buildling envelope through a permit process. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 October 13, 1993 III .